[Politics] Liz Truss **RESIGNS 20/10/2022**

[clapham_gull]

Is that having a second choice? Presumably this requires that the 'winner' needs more than a simple majority (or how is the second choice relevant?), and that without one the second choice vote is counted? Or is their a weighting (with first choice candidate getting a weighting of X and second choice getting a weighting of less than X)?

The trouble with anything not FPTP is that as soon as the voter becomes unsure what they are voting for they don't bother. This may not be an issue in Germany and other sophisticated nations, but we have an awful lot of ignorant, irritable and disengaged people among our electorate. The answer to that may, of course, be **** them.

The Government have said they are dumping it by the way. Was in the manifesto apparently.

 

[Stato]

I appreciate that one can deliver a devastating condemnation of FPTP based upon listing all the chicanery, failure and foolhardiness of every government we have ever had, but changing the system assumes that the replacement wouldn't break immediately. I am happy with a bit of STV within constituencies, but what kind of change to the electoral process do you imagine would transform the integrity and effectiveness of HMGs going forward? At very least, it would need to ring a change in the quality of the candidates, would it not?

I don't know how the party system would adjust to PR, but I'd predict that it's introduction would weaken central party control and I think that this is one of the reasons for the paucity of decent and more widely representative candidates on both sides. I must admit that my problem is mainly with the party system and that FPTP is the main motivation for the two big parties to continue to hold themselves together, despite the obvious evidence that they are both now at least two parties shunted together.

Those in power at the moment are in power because they call themselves Conservatives and because nobody in the party had the motive to do to them what Kinnock did to Militant. I'd agree with Rory Stewart's comments in his recent interview with Politics Joe. They aren't Conservatives. They don't believe in monarchy, nation state, tradition, institutions, church, armed forces, and slow paced change like Conservatives do. Recent evidence suggests that they barely believe in the rule of law. Above anything else, they believe in money and they are for sale to the highest bidder regardless of who is buying or what will be destroyed. Without the name 'Conservative' they would be just a small faddish minority of little consequence. With it, and with the FPTP system, they are gradually destroying concepts and institutions many of which, despite being an old lefty, I hold close to my heart as reasons for pride in our nation. (The NHS, The Welfare State, public education, The BBC, the civil service, local government, separation of powers, and the rule of law). They are being aided by many people who are under the misapprehension that your team winning is more important than the game. These are people who probably cherish these things as much as I do, but who don't recognise the level of risk. Most people aren't interested in politics, they buy the Newspeak of inevtiably and unaffordability and won't notice until its all gone and we've just become America with more interesting sports.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The Government have said they are dumping it by the way. Was in the manifesto apparently.

The current government are dumping FPTP? Seriously? Got a link?

 

[Stato]

The current government are dumping FPTP? Seriously? Got a link?

Perhaps they're just dumping voting.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't know how the party system would adjust to PR, but I'd predict that it's introduction would weaken central party control and I think that this is one of the reasons for the paucity of decent and more widely representative candidates on both sides. I must admit that my problem is mainly with the party system and that FPTP is the main motivation for the two big parties to continue to hold themselves together, despite the obvious evidence that they are both now at least two parties shunted together.

Those in power at the moment are in power because they call themselves Conservatives and because nobody in the party had the motive to do to them what Kinnock did to Militant. I'd agree with Rory Stewart's comments in his recent interview with Politics Joe. They aren't Conservatives. They don't believe in monarchy, nation state, tradition, institutions, church, armed forces, and slow paced change like Conservatives do. Recent evidence suggests that they barely believe in the rule of law. Above anything else, they believe in money and they are for sale to the highest bidder regardless of who is buying or what will be destroyed. Without the name 'Conservative' they would be just a small faddish minority of little consequence. With it, and with the FPTP system, they are gradually destroying concepts and institutions many of which, despite being an old lefty, I hold close to my heart as reasons for pride in our nation. (The NHS, The Welfare State, public education, The BBC, the civil service, local government, separation of powers, and the rule of law). They are being aided by many people who are under the misapprehension that your team winning is more important than the game. These are people who probably cherish these things as much as I do, but who don't recognise the level of risk. Most people aren't interested in politics, they buy the Newspeak of inevtiably and unaffordability and won't notice until its all gone and we've just become America with more interesting sports.

I agree with all that, except that I am not sure any of this is new. Labour has always been a 'broad church' with everything from social democrats to Marxists across the pews. Tthe tories have always had weird leaders, and some hairy-arsed members who get into cabinet, and a big lump of old school tories who believe in what you describe which, alas, also includes being too polite to kick against the pricks.

My question remains - what do you imagine could replace all this, and how (I rule out, here, any coercion, up to and including revolution) may it come to pass?

 

[WATFORD zero]

I agree with all that, except that I am not sure any of this is new. Labour has always been a 'broad church' with everything from social democrats to Marxists across the pews. Tthe tories have always had weird leaders, and some hairy-arsed members who get into cabinet, and a big lump of old school tories who believe in what you describe which, alas, also includes being too polite to kick against the pricks.

My question remains - what do you imagine could replace all this, and how (I rule out, here, any coercion, up to and including revolution) may it come to pass?

I think that without FPTP you would very quickly get at least two labour parties and a similar number (if not more) conservative parties, together with Lib Dems, Greens and maybe the ERG can re-form UKIP. People could then vote for people who actually represent their views. Why should a Rory Stewart supporter have to vote for LIz Truss or a Jeremy Corbyn supporter have to vote for Harriet Harman ?

It will confuse the hell out of some NSC posters not knowing who the red or blue parties are and should be done for that reason alone

 

[nicko31]

If I was a conservative MP I would be fuming that the repeated lack of cohesion in whichever leader is leading the party since May. All over the place. I can only assume it's the advisers that are the problem. No single MP, cabinet minister or even PM can know everything, but their advisers should be doing better than this. Maybe it's a reflection of being in power for so long but yet having four different leaders in that time. I guess each time they bring in new advisers who have to get to know their role so mistakes like this happen. Must drive people mad though, and cannot be good for the country.

I'm gradually moving to the view that the best Government we had was the hung parliament one with Dave and Nick, but then of course that ended with DC walking away from the problem he created.

Another hung parliament with the Lib Dems acting as sensible brakes to Labour might not be a bad thing for 5 years.

As a centerist voter I'm Inclined to agree.

 

[Stato]

I agree with all that, except that I am not sure any of this is new. Labour has always been a 'broad church' with everything from social democrats to Marxists across the pews. Tthe tories have always had weird leaders, and some hairy-arsed members who get into cabinet, and a big lump of old school tories who believe in what you describe which, alas, also includes being too polite to kick against the pricks.

My question remains - what do you imagine could replace all this, and how (I rule out, here, any coercion, up to and including revolution) may it come to pass?

As has been mentioned elsewhere, STV removes the need for party lists. It wouldn't be a quick process, but it could gradually reduce the inclination to vote according to team colours. It could remove the motivation to hold the broad churches together and allow the polite tories to muster behind a Stewart or Dominic Grieve, knowing that a decent showing as a one-nation tory party could allow them a stronger voice in parliament than toeing the party (hard)line under right wing free market extremists. Similarly, it could allow the social democrats in the existing Labour Party to make compromises on an issue by issue basis with centrists parties or with the Marxists (that I'd probably waste my vote on*) or the Greens. More parties could open the way for newer ideas, like Australia's Teal Conservatives, or the Evidence Based Policy Making being pushed by the likes of Ben Goldacre.

* - Although, intellectually, socialism appeals to me. Like you, I rule out any coercion. I'm of the view that currently, the human price to pay to get it, would negate the ideals of wanting to do it in the first place. However, I'd probably be voting for leftists to keep someone arguing that the centrists should promote compassion and equality of opportunity wherever possible whilst they're running things.

 

[Springal]

[tweet]1576928847248863233[/tweet]

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

It does feel like Gove has played this very well. Kept out of the last leadership contest, and now seen as the 'only adult in the room' within the party.

Talk about a very low bar.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[tweet]1576906118323851264[/tweet]

 

[WATFORD zero]

Talk about a very low bar.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well it certainly needs taking down more after Truss miraculously limbo'd under it

 

[clapham_gull]

The current government are dumping FPTP? Seriously? Got a link?

Dumping secondary vote in local elections.



Don't be confused with the Government dumping democracy generally. That's a long term project and nothing to do with the London Mayoral elections.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think that without FPTP you would very quickly get at least two labour parties and a similar number (if not more) conservative parties, together with Lib Dems, Greens and maybe the ERG can re-form UKIP. People could then vote for people who actually represent their views. Why should a Rory Stewart supporter have to vote for LIz Truss or a Jeremy Corbyn supporter have to vote for Harriet Harman ?

It will confuse the hell out of some NSC posters not knowing who the red or blue parties are and should be done for that reason alone

Forgive me for my naivety, but if Rory Stewart is your local tory candidate, how could voting for him be a vote for Thick Lizzy?

In the rest of your post you claim without any explanation that allowing PR will result in the dissolution of the political parties into smaller more narrow factions. Why?

Let's imagine I am a Labour member in a strong tory constituency and we switch to PR. Why would my local party disintegrated into factions and multiple parties? What would that achieve?

And why would the party, nationally, disintegrate? How would this strengthen the likelihood of ousting the tories?

Ah, but you explained that. The tories would also disintegrate - into ERG, One Nation etc.

And then....we would end up with a parliament with 100 swivel-eyed Marxist loonies, 100 social democrats, 100 liberals, 100 centre right one nationers, 100 swivel-eyed right wing loonies, and 100 'none of the above' iconoclast single issue locally embedded, er, nut jobs.

And that will make the governing of this great nation, under difficult circumstances, better, how?

Ah but of course. In a PR parliament, the the centre right and centre left will form a leadership alliance and the swivel eyed loonies on the right and left can do one. Will will be governed for evermore by the sensible middle, with the extremes gnashing their teeth in fulminating frustration.

Except the centre will never have a majority in such a mentalist fragmented granular parliament. Even if a homogenous center exists

Normally I agree with you, but on this occasion, mate, I think you have just posted your reply from Narnia.

You have basically advocated the replacement of two big broad parties with internally competing factions (and the ability to govern, sometimes well, often badly) with multiple narrow parties comprising of ostensibly 'all of the opinions' who would, almost by definition, rather punch the face of the weirdos in the other sects than work with them. Tremendous scenes!

 

[Stato]

Political donors are buying influence. If they switch sides, it is evidence that they expect the opposition to soon have the influence. Or as 'Le Grand Erik'* put it: 'The Seagulls will follow the trawler.'

* - (As Peter Cook used to call him).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Dumping secondary vote in local elections.



Don't be confused with the Government dumping democracy generally. That's a long term project and nothing to do with the London Mayoral elections.

You have confused me with all this talk of local and national electoral system policy. The average voter in the street is not interested in all this nuance. Conflating a policy on local election rubric with national election rubric policy isn't very helpful.

 

[clapham_gull]

You have confused me with all this talk of local and national electoral system policy. The average voter in the street is not interested in all this nuance. Conflating a policy on local election rubric with national election rubric policy isn't very helpful.

You put a cross in a box.

I put two, although the Government are taking that away apparently.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Forgive me for my naivety, but if Rory Stewart is your local tory candidate, how could voting for him be a vote for Thick Lizzy?

In the rest of your post you claim without any explanation that allowing PR will result in the dissolution of the political parties into smaller more narrow factions. Why?

Let's imagine I am a Labour member in a strong tory constituency and we switch to PR. Why would my local party disintegrated into factions and multiple parties? What would that achieve?

And why would the party, nationally, disintegrate? How would this strengthen the likelihood of ousting the tories?

Ah, but you explained that. The tories would also disintegrate - into ERG, One Nation etc.

And then....we would end up with a parliament with 100 swivel-eyed Marxist loonies, 100 social democrats, 100 liberals, 100 centre right one nationers, 100 swivel-eyed right wing loonies, and 100 'none of the above' iconoclast single issue locally embedded, er, nut jobs.

And that will make the governing of this great nation, under difficult circumstances, better, how?

Ah but of course. In a PR parliament, the the centre right and centre left will form a leadership alliance and the swivel eyed loonies on the right and left can do one. Will will be governed for evermore by the sensible middle, with the extremes gnashing their teeth in fulminating frustration.

Except the centre will never have a majority in such a mentalist fragmented granular parliament. Even if a homogenous center exists

Normally I agree with you, but on this occasion, mate, I think you have just posted your reply from Narnia.

You have basically advocated the replacement of two big broad parties with internally competing factions (and the ability to govern, sometimes well, often badly) with multiple narrow parties comprising of ostensibly 'all of the opinions' who would, almost by definition, rather punch the face of the weirdos in the other sects than work with them. Tremendous scenes!

With that sort of dramatic interpretation, you should be up for an award H

Well if the electorate decide that they want 100 swivel-eyed Marxist loonies, 100 social democrats, 100 liberals, 100 centre right one nationers, 100 swivel-eyed right wing loonies, and 100 'none of the above' then surely that's what they should get ?

But as you and me both know, all the centrist parties from both sides would get the vast majority of seats as voting actually changes very little from election to election, despite it resulting in huge majorities in Parliament, swinging policy wildly from one side to the other every few years.

Apart from the few swivel-eyed loons on NSC who escaped bans or set up new accounts, how many actually support the Labour left or the Tory right ? Besides, I always thought you liked the decisiveness and stability that FPTP brings, which is a very timely argument at the moment

I don't think we are going to find common ground until we have a face to face with a crate of [MENTION=27447]Goldstone1976[/MENTION]'s finest

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As has been mentioned elsewhere, STV removes the need for party lists. It wouldn't be a quick process, but it could gradually reduce the inclination to vote according to team colours. It could remove the motivation to hold the broad churches together and allow the polite tories to muster behind a Stewart or Dominic Grieve, knowing that a decent showing as a one-nation tory party could allow them a stronger voice in parliament than toeing the party (hard)line under right wing free market extremists. Similarly, it could allow the social democrats in the existing Labour Party to make compromises on an issue by issue basis with centrists parties or with the Marxists (that I'd probably waste my vote on*) or the Greens. More parties could open the way for newer ideas, like Australia's Teal Conservatives, or the Evidence Based Policy Making being pushed by the likes of Ben Goldacre.

* - Although, intellectually, socialism appeals to me. Like you, I rule out any coercion. I'm of the view that currently, the human price to pay to get it, would negate the ideals of wanting to do it in the first place. However, I'd probably be voting for leftists to keep someone arguing that the centrists should promote compassion and equality of opportunity wherever possible whilst they're running things.

As I just replied to another fine poster, a moderate tory can muster behind The Rory only if he is the name on his local slate. We don't have presidential elections in the UK.

My provisional conclusion, not yet final. is that people think that changing the electoral system to PR will reduce the number of tory MPs and increase the number of MPs from parties they support. Turkeys voting for Easter.

This may or may not be the outcome (and I certainly don't subscribe to the dissolution of the parties theory, from our Narnian correspondent), and so I will offer my hypothesis:

Changing the political system may not much change the outcome (distribution of seats across parliament). If there is a change it will take a mathematician to explain to the voters why this is now 'fair', and my expectation is that most of the nation won't be much bothered, and plenty (the non liberals, the non SWPers, the non Britan Firsters, aside for obvious reasons) will be annoyed. And I doubt very much this will affect how the country is run - unless there is no majority and the fabled, all-healing coalition emerges. The coalition of MPs transformed from their former zealot stances.

And also, how will a tory, in a right wing constituency, elected on the back of a national right wing tory manifesto, embrace the new reality of the perpetual coalition? How will they square this with their constituency? "You voted for no turning back, deportation of illegal immigrants and no taxes, and as your representative, I am now off with my transgender liberal colleagues to work out how to disburse the massive tax take across our diverse nation; toodle oo".

I find it slightly disconcerting that despite being a Labour member, I find myself preferring the present system, based on knowing that this tiny nation has achieved great things, some good and some bad, but always definitive, through its single mindedness and, yes, operating within its systems. I am quite happy with change and have seen much, but binning our political system for one that some, people on NSC, people posting today, imagine will disintegrate the party political system and herald unimagined and unpredictable change, strikes me as gambling without a safety net. I am not a big fan of unpredictable change. I like a bit of disruption, but when it is led by discovery and invention, not when it is led by chucking a brick through the window.

Edit: I love the Goldacre quote.

Edit Edit and I appreciate that it is not you who is advocating the destruction of the present party system

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

With that sort of dramatic interpretation, you should be up for an award H

Well if the electorate decide that they want 100 swivel-eyed Marxist loonies, 100 social democrats, 100 liberals, 100 centre right one nationers, 100 swivel-eyed right wing loonies, and 100 'none of the above' then surely that's what they should get ?

But as you and me both know, all the centrist parties from both sides would get the vast majority of seats as voting actually changes very little from election to election, despite it resulting in huge majorities in Parliament, swinging policy wildly from one side to the other every few years.

Apart from the few swivel-eyed loons on NSC who escaped bans or set up new accounts, how many actually support the Labour left or the Tory right ? Besides, I always thought you liked the decisiveness and stability that FPTP brings, which is a very timely argument at the moment

I don't think we are going to find common ground until we have a face to face with a crate of [MENTION=27447]Goldstone1976[/MENTION]'s finest

I'd enjoy that. Bottom line is I don't really know what would be best in the long run, and am dominated in the end by being risk-averse over issues of long term consequence. But I do enjoy a heated debate